$~

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+

W.P(C) 7336/2010, CM Nos. 9348/2012 & 6859/2014

Judgment delivered on: 04.09.2015

ANNIE NAGARAJA AND ORS.

.... Petitioners
Through: Mrs. Rekha Palli, Sr. Advocate with Ms.
Poonam Singh, Ms. Ankita Patnaik, Mr.
Nikhil Palli, Ms. Shruti Munjal & Ms.
Garima Sachdeva, Advocates
Versus

UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Through:

..... Respondents
Mr. Sanjay Jain, ASG with Mr. Ankur
Chhibber & Ms. Pallavi Shali, Advocates
for the UOI

W.P(C) 7056/2012 & CM Nos.18274-75 /2012

URMILA BHAT
Through:

.... Petitioner
Ms. Meenakshi Lekhi, Advocate.

versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Through:

..... Respondents
Mr. Sanjay Jain, ASG with Mr. Anurag
Ahluwalia, CGSC alongwith Ms. Pallavi
Shali, Advocate for the UOI

W.P(C) 5714/2012 & CM No.11706 /2012

COMMANDER PRITIKA B. SHARMA

.... Petitioner
Through: Mrs. Rekha Palli, Sr. Advocate with Ms.
Poonam Singh, Ms. Ankita Patnaik, Mr.
W.P(C) Nos.7336/10, 7056/12, 5714/12, 7419/12, 6818/13 & 7727/14

Page 1 of 34

Nikhil Palli, Ms. Shruti Munjal & Ms.

Garima Sachdeva, Advocates
versus

UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Through:

..... Respondents
Mr. Sanjay Jain, ASG with Mr. Anurag
Ahluwalia, CGSC alongwith Ms. Pallavi
Shali, Advocate for the UOI

W.P(C) 7419/2012 & CM No. 18980/2012

MANISHA GHATGE AND ORS.

.... Petitioners
Through: Mrs. Rekha Palli, Sr. Advocate with Ms.
Poonam Singh, Ms. Ankita Patnaik, Mr.
Nikhil Palli, Ms. Shruti Munjal & Ms.
Garima Sachdeva, Advocates
versus

UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Through:

..... Respondents
Mr. Sanjay Jain, ASG with Mr. Anurag
Ahluwalia, CGSC alongwith Ms. Pallavi
Shali, Advocate for the UOI

W.P(C) 6818/2013 & CM No.14777 /2013

CDR. SONAL DRAVID

Through:

.... Petitioner
Mrs. Rekha Palli, Sr. Advocate with Ms.
Poonam Singh, Ms. Ankita Patnaik, Mr.
Nikhil Palli, Ms. Shruti Munjal & Ms.
Garima Sachdeva, Advocates

versus

UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

W.P(C) Nos.7336/10, 7056/12, 5714/12, 7419/12, 6818/13 & 7727/14

..... Respondents
Page 2 of 34

Through:

Mr. Sanjay Jain, ASG with Mr. Jasmeet

Singh, CGSC alongwith Ms. Pallavi Shali
& Ms. Kritika Mehra, Advocates for the
UOI

W.P(C) 7727/2014 & CM No.6585 /2015

LT. CDR. SHINY SUNNY

Through:

.... Petitioner
Mrs. Rekha Palli, Sr. Advocate with Ms.
Poonam Singh, Ms. Ankita Patnaik, Mr.
Nikhil Palli, Ms. Shruti Munjal & Ms.
Garima Sachdeva, Advocates

versus

UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Through:

..... Respondents
Mr. Sanjay Jain, ASG with Mr. Jasmeet
Singh, CGSC alongwith Ms. Pallavi Shali
& Ms. Kritika Mehra, Advocates for the
UOI

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH GAMBHIR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI
JUDGMENT
%
KAILASH GAMBHIR, J
1.

By this common order, we propose to decide a batch of six Writ Petitions

filed by seventeen women officers who had joined the Indian Navy as Short
Service Commissioned Officers in different branches which includes Education,
Logistics and ATC. At the time of their commissioning, these officers had
undergone four months training at the Naval Academy, Goa alongwith their
W.P(C) Nos.7336/10, 7056/12, 5714/12, 7419/12, 6818/13 & 7727/14

Page 3 of 34

male counter parts, some of whom were commissioned as SSC Officers while
others were as Permanent Commissioned Officers.
2.

It would be appropriate to reproduce below, Petition wise details of the

said seventeen Petitioners indicating their category, date of commission, date of

completion of 14 years of service and their present status. The same is as under:
S.
No.

Petitioners

Category

Date of
Commissio
ning

Date of
Completion
of 14 years

Status

W.P. (C) No. 7336/2010

1.

Lt. Cdr.
Education
Annie
Nagaraj
2.
Cdr R.
Logistics
Prasanna
3.
Cdr. Puja
Logistics
Chhabra
4.
Cdr. Saroj
Logistics
Kumari
5.
Cdr. Sumita
Education
Balooni
6.
Cdr. E.
ATC
Prasanna
7.
Cdr. Supriya
ATC
Sethu
8.
Cdr. Pawan
Logistics
Preet Mann
(Retd.)
9.
Cdr. Suman
Logistics
Kumari
W.P (C) No. 5714/2012
10.

Cdr. Pritika
Education
Sharma
W.P. (C) No. 7056/2012
11.

Urmila Bhat

Education

08.01.199
9

07.01.2013

Serving as Retirement stayed vide order dt.

05.09.2012

13.07.199
2
01.08.199
2
09.08.198
3
09.08.199
3
12.08.199
4
05.08.199
6
07.08.199
5

12.07.2006

Released after completion of 14 years of service

31.07.2006

Released after completion of 14 years of service

08.08.2007

Released after completion of 14 years of service

08.08.2007

Released after completion of 14 years of service

11.08.2008

Released after completion of 14 years of service

05.08.2010

Released after completion of 14 years of service

07.08.2009

Released after completion of 14 years of service

05.08.199
6

05.08.2010

Released after completion of 14 years of service

05.07.199
9

05.07.2013

Serving as retirement stayed vide order dated

18.09.2012

08.01.199
9

07.01.2013

Serving as retirement stayed

05.07.199
9
05.07.199
9
05.07.199
9

05.07.2013

W.P (C) No. 7419/2012

12.
13.
14.

Cdr. Manisha
Ghatge
Cdr. SS
Gupta
Cdr. Shruti
Dhawan

Education
Education
Education

05.07.2013

Serving as retirement stayed vide order dated

04.12.2012

05.07.2013

W.P(C) Nos.7336/10, 7056/12, 5714/12, 7419/12, 6818/13 & 7727/14

Page 4 of 34

15.

Cdr. Tiji
Abraham
W.P (C) 6818/2013

Education

05.07.199
9

05.07.2013

16.

Education

03.01.200
0

03.01.2014

Serving as retirement stayed vide order dated

30.10.2013

Logistics

02.07.200
1

02.07.2005

Serving as retirement stayed vide order dated

07.05.2012

Cdr. Sonal
Dravid
W.P (C) 7724/2014
17.

Lt. Cdr.
Shiny Sunny

3.

The grievance raised by these seventeen Petitioners in these Writ

Petitions is that after having completed 14 years of service as SSC Officers they
were not granted Permanent Commission and instead were released from
service unlike in the case of Women SSC Officers of Indian Army and Air
Force who have been given Permanent Commission in the same very branches
where they were granted Short Service Commission on the implementation of
the directions given by the Division Bench of this Court in a batch of Writ
Petitions in the case of Babita Punia & Ors. decided on 12th March, 2010. It is
the case of the Petitioners that while Air Force has fully implemented the said
judgment of the Division Bench, the Indian Army has challenged the same
before the Hon'ble Supreme Court but no stay has been granted by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court.
4.

Another grievance of these seventeen Petitioners is predicated on the

ground that during the pendency of the said batch of Writ Petitions before the
Division Bench of this Court in the case of Babita Punia & Ors. case (supra),
the Government of India, Ministry of Defence by a Policy decision vide their
W.P(C) Nos.7336/10, 7056/12, 5714/12, 7419/12, 6818/13 & 7727/14

Page 5 of 34

Order No.12(1)/2004- Defendant (AG). PT.II Govt. of India, Ministry of

Defence dated 26th September, 2008 for the first time took a decision to grant
Permanent Commission to SSC women Officers in all the three Forces but this
offer was restricted to certain categories and was also to operate prospectively
to the benefit of future batches commencing from January, 2009 and this
decision of the respondents caused a serious heart burn amongst these seventeen
Petitioners because of two reasons; firstly, the same being prospective in nature
giving no benefit to these seventeen Petitioners who had already completed 14
years of service and secondly, permanent commission would be offered to SSC
women officers in education branch, law and naval architecture cadres of the
Navy. It may be mentioned here that in terms of the said policy decision of the
respondents, the offer of Permanent Commission in so far as women officers of
Short Service Commission in Navy is concerned, the same restricted to
branches of Education, Law and Naval Architect. Representing the case of
these seventeen Petitioners, Mrs. Rekha Palli, the learned Senior Advocate and
Ms. Meenakshi Lekhi, Advocate vehemently contended that women officers of
all the three Forces have always been treated at par and this as per the learned
counsel is manifest from the fact that earlier there was a bar for induction of
women in all the three Forces and lately the sanction was granted by the
Government for the grant of Permanent Commission to Short Service
Commissioned Officers of all the three Forces. Placing reliance on the judgment
W.P(C) Nos.7336/10, 7056/12, 5714/12, 7419/12, 6818/13 & 7727/14

Page 6 of 34

of this Court in the case Babita Punia & Ors. (supra), the learned counsel
referred to the observations of the Division Bench wherein the Division Bench
took a view that it was reasonable for the women officers of the Army to expect
that they would be treated at par with the women officers in the Air Force and
legitimately expect a fair treatment at the hands of the Government.
5.

Placing reliance on another judgment of this Court reported in Lt. Col

SPS Rekhi v. UOI and Ors., 1999 (2002) DLT 238, the learned counsel
submitted that in this case the Court also noticed that all the three Forces come
under the same Ministry and thus there could not be any discrepancy in the
three Forces which were equal in all aspects and therefore, there can be no
reason as to why the Government should deprive one of the Forces of the
benefit being granted to the other Armed Forces. It is also the case of these
seventeen Petitioners that at the time of joining the Indian Navy and thereafter
at the time of being granted extension of tenure they had a legitimate
expectation that the Government would frame a policy to offer Permanent
Commission to all these officers of Short Service Commission on account of
their successful completion of 14 years of service. As per the learned counsel
this aspect of legitimate expectation has also been considered by the Division
Bench in Babita Punia & Ors. case (supra) wherein it observed that women
officers of the Army can be treated no differently from the Air Force women
officers even though there is no specific policy decision in their case as they are
W.P(C) Nos.7336/10, 7056/12, 5714/12, 7419/12, 6818/13 & 7727/14

Page 7 of 34

at par with the women Air Force officers. In this regard the learned counsel
submitted that women officers of the Navy also deserve the same treatment and
fair play from the Government.
6.

It is also the case of the petitioners that judgment of Division Bench dated

12th March, 2010 has been fully implemented in the case of women SSC
officers of the Air Force in all the branches wherein women officers were
granted SSC which includes ATC, administration, education etc, but in so far as
women SSC officers of Army are concerned though an appeal has been filed by
the Government before Hon'ble Supreme Court to challenge the said judgment
of the Division Bench dated 12.3.2010 but the Hon'ble Supreme Court has not
stayed the operation of the said judgment and consequently all women SSC
officers of Indian Army are continuing to serve and have not been released from
the service after 14 years. It is also the case of the petitioners that the
respondents have granted permanent commission to one Lt. Cdr. J Mendez, who
was a SSC officer in the law branch; nevertheless they are denying permanent
commission to the women SSC officers in certain branches due to service
exigencies. The petitioners also canvassed that the Respondents had tried to
contend that grant of permanent commission to women in logistics branch
would compel them to serve on board ships for which they do not have
appropriate facilities but while taking this plea the respondents have deliberately
not disclosed the fact that in February, 1999 a decision was taken that women of
W.P(C) Nos.7336/10, 7056/12, 5714/12, 7419/12, 6818/13 & 7727/14

Page 8 of 34

all branches / cadres may also be directed to serve on board ships, during
training period and subsequent employment and there cannot be any denial of
the fact that many women officers like the petitioners had already served to the
complete satisfaction of their superiors on various ships under extreme
conditions where even male officers were finding it difficult. Counsel for the
petitioners thus submitted that there can be no justification on the part of the
respondents to contend that though women officers can serve for 14 years in
different branches including education, logistics and ATC at par with their male
counterparts but still they cannot be granted permanent commission in the same
very branches.
7.

Ms. Rekha Palli further submitted that some of the petitioners in W.P.(C)

7336/2010 had been released from service after completion of 14 years of

service before filing of the present Writ Petitions but the Hon'ble Supreme
Court has in the case of a number of similarly situated women officers of the
Indian Air Force, who had also served for the maximum number of permissible
years as SSC officers, directed their reinstatement in the cases of Cdr. A.U.
Tayyaba &Ors. v. Union of India & Ors, and Priyamvada Mardikar & Ors. v.
Union of India & Ors. being Civil Appeal Nos. 79-82/2012 and W.P (C) No.
8630/2009 respectively. Counsel thus submitted that the petitioners are
identically placed as women SSC officers of Indian Air Force and Army and,
therefore, they are entitled to be granted permanent commission in the Navy as
W.P(C) Nos.7336/10, 7056/12, 5714/12, 7419/12, 6818/13 & 7727/14

Page 9 of 34

they have also served for 14 years or more with utmost dedication and their
performance has been highly appreciated.
8.

Counsel for the petitioners also submitted that in a catena of judgments

the Honble Supreme Court has taken a view that equality cannot be achieved
unless there are equal opportunities and if a woman is debarred at the threshold
to enter into the sphere of profession for which she is eligible and qualified, it is
wellnigh impossible to conceive of equality. Counsel also submitted that
instead of prohibiting women employment in the forces altogether, the State
should focus in factoring in ways through which unequal consequences of sex
differences can be eliminated. Counsel thus contended that action of the
respondents to consider women officers only for the grant of SSC while
granting permanent commission to similarly placed male officers shows a clear
case of gender bias on the part of the respondents.
9.

In answer to the preliminary objection raised by the respondents

regarding jurisdiction of this Court in view of Section 3(O) of the Armed Force
Tribunal Act, the counsel submitted that the present case relates to an issue of
gender bias and violation of fundamental rights of women being commissioned
in the Indian Navy which has already been considered by this Court in the
judgment dated 12.3.2010 and, therefore, the preliminary objection raised by the
respondents has no force.

W.P(C) Nos.7336/10, 7056/12, 5714/12, 7419/12, 6818/13 & 7727/14

Page 10 of 34

10.

Based on the above submissions counsel for the petitioners strongly urged

that this Court may be pleased to allow these bunch of writ petitions with the
directions to the respondents to grant permanent commission to all these SSC
officers in the same branches wherein they had served as a Short Service
Commission Officer. In support of their arguments counsel for the petitioners
placed reliance on the following judgments:a) T.K. Rangarajan v. Government of Tamil Nadu and Ors. (2003) 6
SCC 581,
b) M.P. State Agro Industries Development Corporation Ltd. and
Anr. v. Jahan Khan, (2007) 10 SCC 88,
c) Popcorn Entertainment and Anr. v. City Industrial Development
Corpn. and Anr. (2007) 9 SCC 593.
11.

Representing the case of the Respondents, Mr. Sanjay Jain, Additional

Solicitor General of India submitted that the petitioners have an efficacious

remedy to approach the Armed Forces Tribunal for redressal of any grievance
as per Section 3(O) of the Armed Force Tribunal Act, therefore, this Court has
no jurisdiction to try and entertain the present petition. Counsel further
submitted that neither do the petitioners have any legal right and nor do the
respondents have any corresponding obligation to grant permanent commission
to these petitioners who had consciously accepted Short Service Commission
for a limited period of service. Counsel further argued that the petitioners
W.P(C) Nos.7336/10, 7056/12, 5714/12, 7419/12, 6818/13 & 7727/14

Page 11 of 34

cannot seek to enforce their assumed right based on the doctrine of legitimate
expectation as this doctrine has certain identified and legally decided
ingredients albeit regular, consistent, predictable and certain conduct, process or
action by the decision making authority and none of which are existed or even
pleaded by the petitioners in these writ petitions and, therefore, the petitioners
cannot take any shelter under the said doctrine. Counsel also argued that the
petitioners cannot be allowed to form the decision of Division Bench of this
Court as the basis to file the present writ petitions.
12.

That under the Navy Act, 1957 the mandate of the Statute was that no

women shall be eligible for appointment unless the Government in its policy
decision notifies department or branch including conditions of service in which
they could be recruited and it is in the year 1991 the Government of India
decided to lift the bar on appointment in Navy. Counsel further submitted that
Government of India identified such departments and branches where women as
SSC officers along with male officers could be appointed on experimental basis
to see if women would be suitable and compete with men and these select
branches as approved by the cabinet were education, logistics and law
branches/cadres. Accordingly, invoking the powers under Section 9(2) of the
Navy Act, 1957 a scheme for grant of direct entry Short Service Commission
(SSC) in the Indian Navy for both men and women was granted for a period of
7 years, extendable to 10 years, which was subsequently extended upto 14 years
W.P(C) Nos.7336/10, 7056/12, 5714/12, 7419/12, 6818/13 & 7727/14

Page 12 of 34

based on the willingness of the officer and requirement of service. Counsel thus
submitted that a Short Service Commission as it exists today, is essentially
tenure based contractual appointment for a fixed initial term of 10 years with
provision of extension of service to maximum to 14 years and at no stage during
this period any of these petitioners were given assurance for grant of permanent
commission. Counsel further argued that exhaustive terms and conditions of
service for SSC officers (both men and women) have been promulgated and as
per these terms there is complete ban on the deployment of these officers on
board ships for the time being. Counsel further submitted that the terms and
conditions further stated that as per Regulation 122 of Regulations Navy Part III
(Statutory), these officers shall be placed on Emergency List for a period of 5
years after completion of the contractual period and in the teeth of these clear
provisions there is no scope to offer permanent commission to any of these SSC
officers. Counsel further argued that the respondents finally promulgated a
policy for grant of permanent

commission prospectively to SSC women

officers in the Armed Forces vide Government of India letter dated 26.9.2008
and as per this policy permanent commission would be offered prospectively to
SSC women officers in education branch, law and naval architecture cadres of
the Navy. Counsel further submitted that detailed procedure guidelines were
issued for grant of PC prospectively vide letter dated 3.12.2008 and in terms of
the said policy the case of none of the petitioners fall within the ambit of policy
W.P(C) Nos.7336/10, 7056/12, 5714/12, 7419/12, 6818/13 & 7727/14

Page 13 of 34

because their date of commission is prior to the date of issue of said policy. In
answer to the contention of petitioners with regard to the grant of permanent
commission to Lt. Cdr. Mendez in the law cadre of executive branch counsel for
the respondents submitted that considering the exigencies of service the
competent authority has approved grant of PC to Lt. Cdr. Mendez who is
otherwise from the law cadre of the executive branch and there was no gender
discrimination in so far as his appointment was concerned. Counsel further
argued that male officers have been inducted regularly as SSC officers in certain
cadres and their terms and conditions of service have always been at variance
with that of male PC officers. Counsel also submitted that male officers who
were inducted as SSC officers in a few

cadres under the 10+4 scheme were

also released after the completion of their contractual period without granting
them permanent commission as in the case of the women SSC officers. Counsel
also pointed out that cadres in which only male SSC officers are inducted and
not granted permanent commission are
(a)

SSC (Hydro)

(b)

SSC (X/General Service)

(c)

SSC (Pilot)

(d)

SSC (NAI)

(e)

SSC (Musician)

W.P(C) Nos.7336/10, 7056/12, 5714/12, 7419/12, 6818/13 & 7727/14

Page 14 of 34

13.

Mr. Jain further canvassed that the case of these SSC officers cannot be

compared either with the SSC officers of Army or Air Force as in the Navy no
distinction has been made between male and female SSC officers. Counsel also
submitted that in the case of SSC officers of Air Force, the advertisement, itself
mentions that on the

completion of their initial period of 5 years the officers

may opt for permanent commission or another SSC tenure of 6 years unlike
there is no such stipulation made in the advertisement to recruit SSC officers in
the Navy. Counsel also pointed that in the case of Army SSC officers also there
was a gender discrimination while in the case of SSC officer of Navy no case of
gender discrimination has been made out by the petitioners. Counsel also argued
that it is a settled legal position that the Courts normally do not interfere in the
policy decision taken by the Government unless a clear case of mala fide or
arbitrariness is made out. Based on these submissions counsel for the
respondents strongly urged for outright dismissal of these writ petitions. In
support of his arguments counsel placed reliance on the following judgments:a) UOI v. S.L Dutta and Anrs. (1991) 1 SCC 505
b) UOI and Ors. v. S. Vinodh Kumar and Ors. (2007) 8 SCC 100
c) Sethi Auto Service Station and Anr. v. DDA and Ors. (2009) 1 SCC
180
d) Punjab Communications Ltd. v. UOI and Ors. (1999) 4 SCC 727

14.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties at considerable length and

given our anxious consideration to the arguments raised by the learned counsel
for the parties.
W.P(C) Nos.7336/10, 7056/12, 5714/12, 7419/12, 6818/13 & 7727/14

Page 15 of 34

15.

This batch of writ petitions was preferred by the petitioners after a

Division Bench of this Court gave a decision with regard to the Short Service
Commissioned Officers of Indian Air Force and Army vide judgment dated 12 th
March, 2010. This batch of writ petitions was preferred by the writ petitioners
in the month of October, 2010. The petitioners are right in stating that after the
pronouncement of the judgment dated 12th March, 2010, the respondents ought
to have themselves taken steps to reinstate and grant Permanent Commission
(hereinafter referred to as PC for brevity) to all the Short Service
Commissioned Officers (hereinafter referred to as SSC Officers for brevity)
of Indian Navy but they failed to do so despite the fact that the Indian Air Force
had already implemented the directions given by this Court in the said
judgment.
16.

It is, therefore, quite manifest that the genesis of laying a claim for the

grant of permanent commission to these petitioners is the said judgment of the

Division Bench dated 12th March, 2010 and some interim orders passed by the
Honble Supreme Court.

It will, therefore, be necessary to reproduce the

relevant paragraphs of the said judgment before we embark upon to deal with
the controversy in the factual matrix of these writ petitions. The relevant
paragraph of the said judgment is reproduced as under:61. We are, thus, of the considered view that the following directions
are required to be issued:

W.P(C) Nos.7336/10, 7056/12, 5714/12, 7419/12, 6818/13 & 7727/14

Page 16 of 34

i. The claim of absorption in areas of operation not open for

recruitment of women officers cannot be sustained being a policy
decision.
ii. The policy decision not to offer PC to Short Service
Commissioned officers across the board for men and women being
on parity and as part of manpower management exercises is a
policy decision which is not required to be interfered with.
iii. The Short Service Commissioned women officers of the Air
Force who had opted for PC and were not granted PC but granted
extension of SSCs and of the Army are entitled to PC at par with
male Short Service Commissioned officers with all consequential
benefits. This benefit would be conferred to women officers
recruited prior to change of policy as (ii) aforesaid. The
Permanent Commission shall be offered to them after completion
of five years. They would also be entitled to all consequential
benefits such as promotion and other financial benefits. However,
the aforesaid benefits are to be made available only to women
officers in service or who have approached this Court by filing
these petitions and have retired during the course of pendency of
the petitions.
iv. It is made clear that those women officers who have not
attained the age of retirement available for the Permanent
Commissioned officers shall, however, be reinstated in service and
shall be granted all consequential benefits including promotion,
etc. except for the pay and allowance for the period they have not
been in service.
v. The necessary steps including release of financial benefits shall
be done by the authorities within two (2) months of passing of this
order.
17.

Another indisputable and a significant fact is that during the pendency

of the said batch of writ petitions before the Division Bench, the respondents
had introduced a policy dated 26th September, 2008 and as per this policy
decision, the President of India had been pleased to accord sanction to offer
permanent commission to Short Service Commissioned Women Officers to be
W.P(C) Nos.7336/10, 7056/12, 5714/12, 7419/12, 6818/13 & 7727/14

Page 17 of 34

inducted in few selected branches i.e. Judge Advocate General (JAG)

Department and Army Education Corps. (AEC) of Army and their
corresponding Branch/Cadre in Navy and Air Force, Accounts Branch of the
Air Force and Naval Constructor of the Navy in addition to current provisions
for grant of permanent commission to SSC (Men) Officers.
18.

Taking note of the said policy decision introduced by the Government,

the Division Bench observed that such a step taken by the Government,
undoubtedly, was a progressive one. Having commented on the said decision,
the Court further held that the matter needed to be further examined as to why
women personnel who are still in service, could not get the benefit of change of
policy as also the women officers who had approached this Court by filing
petitions but retired during the pendency of those petitions.
19.

The Division Bench in the said case also took a view that where male

SSC Officers can be granted PC while performing the same task as are being
performed by the women SSC Officers then there is no reason as to why equally
capable women officers cannot be granted permanent commission. The Bench
further went on to observe that it is not a charity being sought by the women
officers but enforcement of their Constitutional right. The Court also observed
that the women officers of the Army can be treated no differently from the
Women Officers of the Armed Forces even though there is no specific policy
decision in their case as they are at par with the Women Armed Force Officers.
W.P(C) Nos.7336/10, 7056/12, 5714/12, 7419/12, 6818/13 & 7727/14

Page 18 of 34

20.

It further held that there is no reason why these persons who have

knocked the door of the Court, should be deprived of their benefit and the
benefit is merely conferred prospectively for the grant of permanent
commission to women. The Court thus extended the benefit to all the serving
officers and also the ones who had knocked the Court but during the period of
consideration of the matter, retired from service.
21.

The Court further observed that it could have been in the fitness of things

if the respondents having taken the decision to offer permanent commission

prospectively, should have favourably examined the policy itself and the plea of
the petitioners who were in service or retired from service during the pendency
of petitions, to grant them an equivalent benefit as in the matters of gender
discrimination, a greater sensitivity is expected and required.
22.

The Indian Navy Act was enacted in the year 1957. Women were not

commissioned in the Navy till the issuance of notification dated 9th October,
1991 (published on 26th October, 1991) whereby for the first time, the power
under the enabling provision under Section 9(2) of the Navy Act, was exercised
and it was laid down by the respondent no.1 that women would also be eligible
for appointment as officers in the Indian Navy confining to three branches
namely Logistics, Law Branches/Cadres and Education Branch. Similar such
notification was also issued by the other two Armed Forces i.e. the Indian Army
and the Indian Air Force. In the said notification dated 9th October, 1991, the
W.P(C) Nos.7336/10, 7056/12, 5714/12, 7419/12, 6818/13 & 7727/14

Page 19 of 34

respondent no.1 notified that with regard to grant of permanent commission to

SSC Officers, the policy will be promulgated in the year 1997.
23.

It is a matter on record that no such policy was announced by the

respondent no.1 till the said notification dated 26th September, 2008 was issued
by the respondent no.1 during the pendency of the earlier batch of writ petitions.
It is also an indisputable fact that these petitioners who had entered the Short
Service Commission initially for a period of seven years, were given extension
to complete the service of 14 years but took no legal step to claim their right for
the grant of permanent commission. In the case of SSC Officers of the Air
Force, the terms and conditions as were notified in the advertisement, clearly
stipulated that the initial engagement period would be for five years from the
date of commissioning with provision to opt for permanent commission or
another tenure of six years. It also added that grant of permanent commission
would depend on vacancy and suitability of officers. It is the said clause in the
advertisement which was sought to be enforced by the SSC Officers of the Air
Force. There was no such direct assurance for grant of permanent commission
with regard to the case of the Army women officers, extended by the
Government and based on the doctrine of legitimate expectation the Division
Bench took a view that Women Officers of the Army can be treated no
differently from the Air Force Women Officers even though there is no specific

W.P(C) Nos.7336/10, 7056/12, 5714/12, 7419/12, 6818/13 & 7727/14

Page 20 of 34

policy decision in their case as they are at par with the Women Officers of the
Air Force.
24.

In the case of Women Short Service Commissioned Officers in the Navy,

the policy guidelines of 20th December, 1991 stipulates that the policy in regard
to the grant of permanent commission will be promulgated in 1997. No such
policy was promulgated by the Government and it is only in the year 2008 by an
order dated 26th September, 2008, that decision was taken by the Government to
grant permanent commission to SSC Women Officers.
25.

The grievance of the petitioners with regard to this new policy of 26 th

September, 2008 firstly is that the same has been made effective prospectively
to Short Service Commissioned Women Officers and secondly, the policy has
been confined to certain limited categories. Regulation 203 of Chapter IX of
the Indian Navy Act, 1957 puts no restriction to the grant of permanent
commission either gender wise or category wise
Regulation 203 of Chapter IX is reproduced hereunder:CHAPTER IX
GRANT OF PERMANENT COMMISSION
SERVICE COMMISSION OFFICERS

TO

SHORT

203. Grant of Permanent Commission (1) subject to the

availability of vacancies in the stabilized cadre of the Navy,
Permanent Commission may be granted from time to time to Short
Service Commission Officers of the rank of Sub-Lieutenant and
above who are considered suitable and are recommended by the
Chief of the Naval Staff.

W.P(C) Nos.7336/10, 7056/12, 5714/12, 7419/12, 6818/13 & 7727/14

Page 21 of 34

(2) Officers granted Permanent Commission may be transferred

with their existing rank and seniority. The retention of any acting
rank held by an officer at the time of transfer to a Permanent
Commission shall be governed by Regulation 202.
(3) Short Service Commission Officers selected for the grant of
Permanent Commission in the Navy shall conform to the medical
standard laid down by the Chief of the Naval Staff from time to
time.
26.

The Indian Air Force has already implemented the directions given by the

Division Bench of this Court vide orders dated 12th March, 2010 in the case of
women SSC officers of the Air Force in all the branches wherein women
officers were granted SSC which includes ATC, administration, education etc.
27.

On perusal of the annexure attached with the letter dated 2nd August,

2010, it is quite manifest that some of the petitioners who were in the logistics
and some other branches not covered by the policy guidelines dated 26th
September, 2008 but yet were granted permanent commission in compliance of
the directions given by the Division Bench vide their judgment dated 12th
March, 2010.
28.

The Honble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos.79-82/2012 has given

the direction for reinstatement of even those SSC Women Officers who retired
after having completed 14 years of their service as SSC officers. Similarly, this
Court in the case of Priyamvada Madrikar & Ors. V. Union of India & Ors. in
WP (C) No.8630/2009 dated 1st December, 2014 has given the direction for the
reinstatement of the petitioners on their respective posts subject to the final
W.P(C) Nos.7336/10, 7056/12, 5714/12, 7419/12, 6818/13 & 7727/14

Page 22 of 34

outcome of the SLP preferred by the Government of India challenging the

decision of the Division Bench dated 12th March, 2010.

The following

directions were given by this Court in the order dated 1st December, 2014:
1. The respondents shall reinstate these petitioners
within a period of four weeks from today on their
respective posts;
2.
such reinstatement shall be subject to the final
outcome of the said SLP i.e. CC No.10437/2010 titled
Secr., Ministry of Defence vs. Babita Puniya & Anr.
pending consideration before the Honble Supreme Court;
3.
the petitioners shall not claim any benefit of the
period between the date of their retirement and their
reinstatement regarding their pay, seniority, scale and
promotion; and
4.
the reinstatement of the petitioners shall be subject
to their medical fitness.

29.

On the last Republic Day parade, the Indian Government was proud to

showcase women power but in reality, the picture is entirely different.

Firstly, the women officers are still not allowed to join combat units unlike in
the countries like Israel and United States. In the United States, women were
allowed in combat roles as recently as in 2013 after it lifted the 1994 Ban on
women in direct combat roles. In 1995, Norway became the first country to
allow women to serve on submarines. Russian women have been fighting in
combat since World War 1 and in fact no role in the Soviet military was closed
for women including sniper duties, machine gunners, tanks and fighter pilots
etc.

W.P(C) Nos.7336/10, 7056/12, 5714/12, 7419/12, 6818/13 & 7727/14

Page 23 of 34

30.

No doubt, India took a major step in allowing women to apply for the

Armed Forces but the country is still lagging behind from many other countries
in having women in command of military units.
31.

We are here not dealing with the issue of women being denied combat

roles, but here the more disturbing question is that in the three separate branches
of Executive where the women had served as Short Service Commissioned
Officers for a period of 14 years but not granted permanent commission and the
ground taken by the respondent to deny permanent commission in these
categories is that it is a matter of policy decision taken to grant permanent
commission to SSC Women Officers prospectively restricting the same to only
JAG Department, Education Branch and Naval Architecture.
32.

We fail to comprehend that when these petitioners along with the male

officers had undertaken the same kind of training but nevertheless were denied
permanent commission although the men were granted the permanent
commission with no special merit except for the fact that they belong to the
male sex. If this does not tantamount to gender discrimination then what else
does?
33.

It is a matter of record that all these petitioners had successfully

completed their tenure of 14 years as SSC Officers and the cases of all these
petitioners were recommended for permanent commission by their superiors yet
they were not considered for the grant of permanent commission.
W.P(C) Nos.7336/10, 7056/12, 5714/12, 7419/12, 6818/13 & 7727/14

The

Page 24 of 34

consequences of denial of the permanent commission to these officers has an

agonising affect on these officers as after having put in 14 years of service, they
are deprived of the pension and other monetary benefits. The respondents have
indisputably carved an exception in the case of Lieutenant Cdr. J. Mendez who
was given a permanent commission in Law Branch but insofar as the cases of
these petitioners are concerned, the same has been denied to them on the ground
that the policy issued by the respondent no.1 is prospective in nature and also
the Logistic and ATC Branches are not covered by the said policy.
34.

Under Article 14 of the Constitution of India, every citizen has the right

to equality of law and equal protection before law. The concept of an arbitrary
action being in violation of Article 14 was first introduced in the case of E.P.
Royappa v State of Tamil Nadu, (1974) 4 SCC 3, wherein it was observed that
equality is antithetic to arbitrariness. .Thus Article 14 has a very wide ambit
and encompasses within it equality, the principles of natural justice and is a
mandate against arbitrary state actions. This imposes a duty on the state to act
fairly. Good governance in conformity with the mandate of Article 14, raises a
reasonable or legitimate expectation in every citizen to be treated fairly in its
interaction with the state and its instrumentalities. (Ref: Food Corporation of
India. v. Kamdhenu Cattlefeed Industries Reported In (1993) 1 SCC 71 ;)
35.

The petitioners were assured vide letter dated 20.12.1991, that a policy

for permanent commission would be promulgated in the year 1997 and these
W.P(C) Nos.7336/10, 7056/12, 5714/12, 7419/12, 6818/13 & 7727/14

Page 25 of 34

petitioners had high hopes attached to it, but they were shattered when no such
policy was promulgated. And it was only in the year 2008, that by an order
dated 26th September, 2008, a decision was taken by the Government to grant
permanent commission to SSC Women Officers, but this was made effective
prospectively.
36.

There was nothing wrong on the part of these officers to have legitimately

expected grant of PC once the PC was offered to their male counterparts based
on the same kind of training. After having worked for 14 long years there was
no reason to deny PC to them, if for 14 years we can allow a lady to work as an
officer on a particular post, earn her pay and promotions in the non combat area
(logistics), or for that matter in any other wing, why send her home after 14
years when her male counterparts can carry on up to 60 years of service.
37.

However, what needs to be borne in mind is that legitimate expectation

is not equivalent to a legal right. The concept is more of an equitable rather than
of legalistic nature. It is an expectation of benefit, relief or remedy that may
ordinarily flow from a promise or established practice. The expectation should
be legitimate, i.e., reasonable, logical and valid
38.

Explaining the nature and scope of the doctrine of legitimate expectation,

the Honble Supreme Court in Food Corporation of India v. M/s Kamdhenu

Cattle Feed Industries case (Supra), observed thus:
"The

mere reasonable or legitimate expectation of a citizen, in such

a situation, may not by itself be a distinct enforceable right, but
W.P(C) Nos.7336/10, 7056/12, 5714/12, 7419/12, 6818/13 & 7727/14

Page 26 of 34

39.

failure to consider and give due weight to it may render the

decision arbitrary, and this is how the requirement of due
consideration of a legitimate expectation forms part of the
principle of non-arbitrariness, a necessary concomitant of the rule
of law. Every legitimate expectation is a relevant factor requiring
due consideration in a fair decision-making process. Whether the
expectation of the claimant is reasonable or legitimate in the
context is a question of fact in each case. Whenever the question
arises, it is to be determined not according to the claimant's
perception but in larger public interest wherein other more
important considerations may outweigh what would otherwise have
been the legitimate expectation of the claimant. A bona fide
decision of the public authority reached in this manner would
satisfy the requirement of non-arbitrariness and withstand judicial
scrutiny. The doctrine of legitimate expectation gets assimilated in
the rule of law and operates in our legal system in this manner and
to this extent."
The Honble Supreme Court whilst explaining the concept of Legitimate

Expectation in the case of Union of India & Ors. v. Hindustan Development

Corporation & Ors. (1993) 3 SCC 499 observed as under:
"If a denial of legitimate expectation in a given case amounts to
denial of right guaranteed or is arbitrary, discriminatory, unfair or
biased, gross abuse of power or violation of principles of natural
justice, the same can be questioned on the well-known grounds
attracting Article 14 but a claim based on mere legitimate
expectation without anything more cannot ipso facto give a right to
invoke these principles. It can be one of the grounds to consider but
the court must lift the veil and see whether the decision is violative
of these principles warranting interference. It depends very much
on the facts and the recognised general principles of administrative
law applicable to such facts and the concept of legitimate
expectation which is the latest recruit to a long list of concepts
fashioned by the courts for the review of administrative action,
must be restricted to the general legal limitations applicable and
binding the manner of the future exercise of administrative power
W.P(C) Nos.7336/10, 7056/12, 5714/12, 7419/12, 6818/13 & 7727/14

Page 27 of 34

in a particular case. It follows that the concept of legitimate

expectation is "not the key which unlocks the treasury of natural
justice and it ought not unlock the gate which shuts the court out of
review on the merits", particularly when the element of speculation
and uncertainty is inherent in that very concept."
40.

In Jitendra Kumar & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Anr.( 2008)2 SCC 161,

it has been reiterated that a legitimate expectation is not the same thing as an
anticipation. It is distinct and different from a desire and hope. It is based on a
right. It is grounded in the rule of law as requiring regularity, predictability and
certainty in the Government's dealings with the public and the doctrine of
legitimate expectation operates both in procedural and substantive matters.
41.

In the instant batch of Writ Petitions we have no hesitation in taking a

view that no provision of PC has been made in the policy of 26th September,
2008 to Short Service Commissioned Women Officers in Education, Logistics
and ATC, whereas male officers had the option of PC right from the inception.
These petitioners along with the male officers had undertaken the same kind of
training and served for a good fourteen year or so, but were denied permanent
commission while their male colleagues and batchmates were granted the
permanent commission, with no special merit in the latters favour except for
the fact that they belong to the male sex. If this isnt gender discrimination then
what else could possibly be?
42.

One of the most memorable images from this years Republic Day

parade, that played host to US President, was that of the all-women contingent
W.P(C) Nos.7336/10, 7056/12, 5714/12, 7419/12, 6818/13 & 7727/14

Page 28 of 34

of the three armed forces marching smartly down the Rajpath in Delhi for the
first time ever. However the one worry that loomed large in the minds of these
women officers was the fact that the display of Nari Shakti was limited to the
parade day and that they will be soon shown the door by the Armed Forces after
the completion of 14 years of SSC, denying them even pensionary benefits. For
a long time women in India have remained within the four walls of their
household. Their reliance on men folk was absolute. It is high time we change
our attitude towards women. India being a developing country in order to
develop needs the tool of women empowerment more than anything.
Conferment of equal status on women apart from being a constitutional right
has been recognized as a human right.In the words of Kofi Annan - There is no
tool more effective than the empowerment of women for development of a
country.
43.

Inequalities between the two sexes and discrimination against women

have also been long-standing issues all over the world. Thus, womens pursuit
of equality with man is a universal phenomenon.
44.

Reliance in this regard can be placed on the judgment of the Honble

Supreme Court in the case of Anuj Garg & Ors. v. Hotel Association Of India
& Ors. (2008) 3 SCC 1 observed as under:
When the original Act was enacted, the concept of equality
between two sexes was unknown. The makers of the Constitution
intended to apply equality amongst men and women in all spheres
of life. In framing Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution, the
W.P(C) Nos.7336/10, 7056/12, 5714/12, 7419/12, 6818/13 & 7727/14

Page 29 of 34

constitutional goal in that behalf was sought to be achieved.

Although the same would not mean that under no circumstance,
classification, inter alia, on the ground of sex would be wholly
impermissible but it is trite that when the validity of a legislation is
tested on the anvil of equality clauses contained in Articles 14 and
15, the burden thereof would be on the State. While considering
validity of a legislation of this nature, the court was to take notice
of the other provisions of the Constitution including those
contained in Part IV A of the Constitution.
..........
...... Right of employment itself may not be a fundamental right but
in terms of both Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India,
each person similarly situated has a fundamental right to be
considered thereof.......

Instead of putting curbs on women's freedom, empowerment would

be a more tenable and socially wise approach. This empowerment
should reflect in the law enforcement strategies of the state as well
as law modelling done in this behalf.
Also with the advent of modern state, new models of security must
be developed. There can be a setting where the cost of security in
the establishment can be distributed between the state and the
employer.
Gender equality today is recognized by the European Court as one
of the key principles underlying the Convention and a goal to be
achieved by member States of the Council of Europe.
..............
Instead of prohibiting women employment in the bars altogether
the state should focus on factoring in ways through which unequal
consequences of sex differences can be eliminated. It is state's duty
to ensure circumstances of safety which inspire confidence in
women to discharge the duty freely in accordance to the
requirements of the profession they choose to follow. Any other
W.P(C) Nos.7336/10, 7056/12, 5714/12, 7419/12, 6818/13 & 7727/14

Page 30 of 34

policy inference (such as the one embodied under section 30) from
societal conditions would be oppressive on the women and against
the privacy rights.

45.

Reverting back to the facts of the instant case the policy of 2008 is

irrational, arbitrary and is a clear case of discrimination. To our surprise this

policy was formulated by the Government during the pendency of the earlier
Writ Petitions but no care was taken to offer PC in the branches where the SSC
Women Officers had worked for 14 years.
46.

In the branches where the Short Service Commission Officers had

worked for 14 years no convincing or cogent material has been placed on record
by the respondent to apprise the Court as to for what reasons the petitioners who
have been performing their duties including duties on the seas cannot be offered
permanent commission in the same very branches.
47.

Before we part with this judgment we want to say that women are here to

stay and they are going to take an active part in every sphere of life and walk
shoulder to shoulder with men. Sexist bias and stereotypes seem to have dogged
the service conditions of women serving in the Forces. However, the travel of
women in this regard has not always been an easy one. The Courts would
frown upon any endeavour which restrains the progress of women for equitable
space. The march of time has proven that gender does not define ability and or
calibre.
Over about seven decades ago, the famous and progressive Urdu poet
Asrar ul Haq Majaz [Majaz Lakhnavi (1911-1955)] has so beautifully

W.P(C) Nos.7336/10, 7056/12, 5714/12, 7419/12, 6818/13 & 7727/14

Page 31 of 34

exhorted

women to contest for their equitable space in the world in the

following words:
tere mathe pe ye anchal to bahut hi khuub hai lekin
tu is anchal se ik parcham bana leti to achchha tha.

(Meaning: While the raiment covering your head is good, it

would be better if you made a banner of it.)

48.

We are, thus, of the considered opinion that so far as the petitioners in the

Logistics and ATC branches are concerned they are equally entitled to the grant
of PC for they have worked hard for 14 long years as SSC Officers and there is
no reason to deny them the said relief.
49.

PC having already been offered prospectively to SSC (Women) Officers

in the Education branch vide policy guideline of 2008, therefore, we are of the
view that these petitioners deserve to be granted PC
50.

In the light of the aforesaid, we consider it fit to give the following

directions:

a) The claim of absorption in areas of operation not

open for recruitment of women officers cannot
be sustained being a policy decision.
b) The Short Service Commissioned Officers of the
Navy who had opted for PC and were not granted
PC but instead were granted extension of SSC
W.P(C) Nos.7336/10, 7056/12, 5714/12, 7419/12, 6818/13 & 7727/14

Page 32 of 34

and were not retired at the time of filing of these

Writ Petitions and had attained the age of
retirement during the pendency of the present
petitions, they shall be offered PC within a
period of 6 weeks from the date of this order.
They shall be entitled to all consequential
benefits such as promotion and other financial
benefits

subject

to

their

medical

fitness.

However, their appointment to the post of PC

shall be subject to the final outcome of the said
SLP i.e. CC No.10437/2010 titled Secr.,
Ministry of Defence v. Babita Puniya & Anr.
pending

consideration

before

the

Honble

Supreme Court;
c) With respect to the petitioners who had attained
the age of superannuation prior to the filing of
the Writ Petitions by them the following
directions are required to be issued:

1. The respondents shall reinstate these

petitioners within a period of six weeks
from today on their respective posts;
2. such reinstatement shall be subject to
the final outcome of the said SLP i.e. CC
No.10437/2010 titled Secr., Ministry of
Defence vs. Babita Puniya & Anr.
pending consideration before the Honble
Supreme Court;
3. the petitioners are entitled to no
benefits.
4. the reinstatement of the petitioners
shall be subject to their medical fitness.
W.P(C) Nos.7336/10, 7056/12, 5714/12, 7419/12, 6818/13 & 7727/14

Page 33 of 34

51.

The petitions are accordingly allowed in the aforesaid terms. No orders as

to costs.

(KAILASH GAMBHIR)
JUDGE
(NAJMI WAZIRI)
JUDGE
SEPTEMBER 04, 2015
v/aa

W.P(C) Nos.7336/10, 7056/12, 5714/12, 7419/12, 6818/13 & 7727/14

Page 34 of 34